Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter

Aaron J. Schwartz; Peter Sheridan Dodds; Jarlath P. M. O’Neil-Dunne; Taylor H. Ricketts; Christopher M. Danforth

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261056

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 9, 2020
26 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Mingxing Chen, Editor PONE-D-20-27777 Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Schwartz, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Mingxing Chen, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We are grateful for support from the NSF GRFP program, the Gund Institute for the Environment Catalyst Award program, and a gift from MassMutual Life Insurance Company." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "AJS is supported by NSF GRFP program DGE1451866. https://www.nsfgrfp.org/ All authors are supported by Gund Institute for the Environment Catalyst Award program. https://www.uvm.edu/gund/gund-catalyst-awards The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Additionally, because some of your funding information pertains to commercial funding, we ask you to provide an updated Competing Interests statement, declaring all sources of commercial funding. In your Competing Interests statement, please confirm that your commercial funding does not alter your adherence to PLOS ONE Editorial policies and criteria by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests. If this statement is not true and your adherence to PLOS policies on sharing data and materials is altered, please explain how. Please include the updated Competing Interests Statement and Funding Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: (1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” (2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The analysis in this article is very innovative and meaningful, it combines the Twitter platform and big data technology with the relationship between language and emotion, to explore the impact of urban parks and happiness benefits. However, several aspects need to be further explored. 1. The content of the literature review is not sufficient enough, and the paper does not accurately point out what previous studies have been done, and which aspects need to be filled in. 2. The titles of the figures are too long, adding the explanations of the figures in the text or adding some legends to the figure is more appropriate. 3. More methods can be considered in the article to determine the relationship between green space and happiness in different geographical locations, such as geographically weighted regression. Reviewer #2: This study estimated a happiness benefit, the difference in expressed happiness between in- and out-of-park tweets, for 25 cities in the US. The topic of this paper is worthwhile to be explored. However, the analysis is too simple to make the conclusions. （1）This manuscript lacks necessary theoretical thinking.（2）The literature review is too simple. There is little introduction and comment on the results of the analysis. (3) The whole article is very descriptive, without much solid and in-depth analysis. Reviewer #3: The paper is an interesting analysis of social media data. I suggest several minor revisions: page 2: 'These pathways have been explored using a dose-response framework which describe the duration, frequency, and intensity of nature contact.' should be cited. page 2 etc: Please call out the hypotheses more directly, using bold text or H1: xxx, so the reader is able to quickly access these important statements. page 3, The first full paragraph seems to support another hypothesis. page 4: Sentiment analysis - provide a sentence that explains the derivation of word scores as this information is fundamental to the paper's premise. Sentence at end of same paragraph is unclear. Concluding Remarks: You may wish to address these observations and questions: - This is another study providing correlational connections between nature and health. Could there be a more refined methodology using social media that would reveal causal mechanisms? - As I read I found myself thinking, what would be the happiness treets scores for people in a museum, or at an event in a sports stadium, or even with friends at a bar? What would be happiness quotients comparisons? And considering that there would be similarities what would be the cost/benefit ratio of investing in different facilities to promote happiness? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Kathleen L Wolf [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261056.r001
Revision 1
21 May 2021 Author Response Editors PLOS ONE May 21, 2021 Dear Dr. Chen: We thank you and the reviewers for the constructive feedback and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit. We have addressed all comments and are pleased to submit our revised manuscript, Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter, for inclusion in the Urban Ecosystems collection at PLOS ONE. We have attached our responses to both editor and reviewer comments below. We have submitted a fully reformatted manuscript as well as a marked-up version produced with latexdiff showing revisions from the original submission. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response. Best regards, Aaron J. Schwartz Aaron.J.Schwartz@colorado.edu Peter Dodds Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne Taylor Ricketts Chris Danforth When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf We have adapted PLOS ONE’s style requirements. We have included a version of the original manuscript submission (old_manuscript.pdf) in PLOS ONE format, the revised manuscript in PLOS ONE format manuscript.pdf) and a marked-up version of the manuscript produced with latexdiff (revised_manuscript_with_track_changes.pdf). 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We are grateful for support from the NSF GRFP program, the Gund Institute for the Environment Catalyst Award program, and a gift from MassMutual Life Insurance Company." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "AJS is supported by NSF GRFP program DGE1451866. https://www.nsfgrfp.org/ All authors are supported by Gund Institute for the Environment Catalyst Award program. https://www.uvm.edu/gund/gund-catalyst-awards The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Additionally, because some of your funding information pertains to commercial funding, we ask you to provide an updated Competing Interests statement, declaring all sources of commercial funding. Here is an updated Funding Statement: AJS is supported by NSF GRFP program DGE1451866. https://www.nsfgrfp.org/ All authors are supported by Gund Institute for the Environment Catalyst Award program. https://www.uvm.edu/gund/gund-catalyst-awards Authors associated with the MassMutual Center for Excellence for Complex Systems and Data Science are supported in part by a gift from MassMutual Life Insurance Company. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. In your Competing Interests statement, please confirm that your commercial funding does not alter your adherence to PLOS ONE Editorial policies and criteria by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests. If this statement is not true and your adherence to PLOS policies on sharing data and materials is altered, please explain how. Please include the updated Competing Interests Statement and Funding Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Updated Competing Interests Statement: Authors associated with the MassMutual Center for Excellence for Complex Systems and Data Science are supported in part by a gift from MassMutual Life Insurance Company. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Data will be made available upon acceptance at the following DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12915329 4. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: (1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” (2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ We have decided to remove the figure at this time to avoid copyright issues. Response to reviewers: Reviewer #1: The analysis in this article is very innovative and meaningful, it combines the Twitter platform and big data technology with the relationship between language and emotion, to explore the impact of urban parks and happiness benefits. However, several aspects need to be further explored. 1. The content of the literature review is not sufficient enough, and the paper does not accurately point out what previous studies have been done, and which aspects need to be filled in. Response: We have expanded our literature review and reorganized our introduction section (Lines 2-91). We now discuss relevant literature from four different types of approaches to studying nature contact (experimental, epidemiological, experience-based, social media) and explain the contributions of each to the field. We have more clearly explained what prior studies have done when examining urban parks and happiness, as well as the most relevant gaps. 2. The titles of the figures are too long, adding the explanations of the figures in the text or adding some legends to the figure is more appropriate. Response: We have shortened the figure titles (See Figures 1-5). We have maintained detailed captions to ensure readers can fully parse the figures. 3. More methods can be considered in the article to determine the relationship between green space and happiness in different geographical locations, such as geographically weighted regression. Our sample of 25 cities does not lend itself to regression methods. We are not trying to estimate a causal relationship between greenspace and happiness across locations. Instead, we have performed a variety of controls on our sentiment analysis – matching Tweets by time of day within the same city and user (Materials & Methods, S2. Appendix), removing a variety of bots and hashtags (S3. Appendix) and performing the bootstrap procedure in our estimate of happiness benefit. These methods help us compare and explore the relative mental benefit of urban park visitation across cities. Reviewer #2: This study estimated a happiness benefit, the difference in expressed happiness between in- and out-of-park tweets, for 25 cities in the US. The topic of this paper is worthwhile to be explored. However, the analysis is too simple to make the conclusions. (1) This manuscript lacks necessary theoretical thinking. Thank you for your suggestions. We have added theoretical grounding to the introduction (Lines 19-47) (2）The literature review is too simple. We have significantly broadened the literature review, organized into 4 paragraphs (Lines 9-47) (3) There is little introduction and comment on the results of the analysis. We integrated our results and discussion sections into a single section, which we introduce on lines 186-189. We comment on the results of the analysis throughout this section (Lines 197-286). Reviewer #3: The paper is an interesting analysis of social media data. I suggest several minor revisions: page 2: 'These pathways have been explored using a dose-response framework which describe the duration, frequency, and intensity of nature contact.' should be cited. Thank you for catching this omission. During our revision of the introduction and theoretical framework we removed this sentence. The original citation should have been: Shanahan, D. F., Fuller, R. A., Bush, R., Lin, B. B., & Gaston, K. J. (2015). The Health Benefits of Urban Nature: How Much Do We Need? BioScience, 65(5), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv032 page 2 etc: Please call out the hypotheses more directly, using bold text or H1: xxx, so the reader is able to quickly access these important statements. Thank you, we have added 5 explicit hypotheses bolded and marked as H1-H4 on lines 55,60, 65, 69, 79. We now reference these in our results as well (see lines 192, 238-239, 252, 270). page 3, The first full paragraph seems to support another hypothesis. We added an additional explicit hypothesis on line 60 (H2B). page 4: Sentiment analysis - provide a sentence that explains the derivation of word scores as this information is fundamental to the paper's premise. Sentence at end of same paragraph is unclear. Thank you for this comment. We have edited the paragraph on Lines 119-133 to provide additional detail on the derivation of word scores and clarified the last sentence of the paragraph. Concluding Remarks: You may wish to address these observations and questions: This is another study providing correlational connections between nature and health. Could there be a more refined methodology using social media that would reveal causal mechanisms? This is a key challenge in non-experimental approaches to studying nature contact and well-being. There are many determinants of mental health and it may be impossible to completely isolate the contribution of nature to someone’s well-being. We added additional detail to our introduction on the pros and cons of different methodological approaches (Lines 20-47) to clarify the utility of social media-based approaches and how they can contribute to collective efforts in studying nature and health. We attempt to address some of the correlational issues by including control groups for our in-park tweets, which we discuss in Materials & Methods (Lines 134-145) and expand upon in the Appendix (Lines 465-478). As I read I found myself thinking, what would be the happiness tweet scores for people in a museum, or at an event in a sports stadium, or even with friends at a bar? What would be happiness quotients comparisons? And considering that there would be similarities what would be the cost/benefit ratio of investing in different facilities to promote happiness? Thank you, this is a great suggestion. We now include a call for future research of this type in our Future Directions section (Lines 294-300). We note that there would be interesting methodological challenges to overcome such as data density (museums) or in filtering out stop words (sporting events) that should be informed by domain specific knowledge. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261056.r002
24 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Mingxing Chen, Editor PONE-D-20-27777R1 Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Schwartz, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Mingxing Chen, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #4: Based on the sentiment trend analysis from Twitter data, this paper studies the happiness scores in and outside parks in 25 cities in the United States, then calculates the happiness benefits. It’s a carefully done study and the results are of considerable interest, but there are still some issues to be clarified as follows. (1) This paper uses the weighted average method to calculate the happiness benefits, which often conceals the high and low values in the areas outside the park. Is it possible to use thermograms to show the spatial distribution of annual happiness within these cities? (2) In the chapter of Temporal Analysis, the discussion of related results was missed. For example, the results in summer are higher than winter, and in weekends are higher than working days. It is worth considering that is this related to people’s travel habits. (3) We are happy to see your great results, but there is a lack of discussion at the end of this paper about the limitations, which is a common part of big data research. For example, the data comes from younger people who are more likely to share Twitter, and whether the higher spatial scale of the park (Fig4. A) is related to the surrounding population density and age structure is worth further discussion. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #4: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261056.r003
Revision 2
27 Sep 2021 Author Response Editors PLOS ONE September 27, 2021 Dear Dr. Chen: We thank you and the reviewers for the constructive feedback and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit. We have addressed all comments and are pleased to submit our revised manuscript, Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter, for inclusion in the Urban Ecosystems collection at PLOS ONE. We have attached our responses to comments from Reviewer #4 below. In the prior revision, we made significant changes based on feedback from Reviewers #1-3. We have submitted a fully reformatted manuscript as well as a marked-up version produced with latexdiff showing revisions from the previous submission. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response. Best regards, Aaron J. Schwartz Aaron.J.Schwartz@colorado.edu Peter Dodds Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne Taylor Ricketts Chris Danforth Reviewer #4: Based on the sentiment trend analysis from Twitter data, this paper studies the happiness scores in and outside parks in 25 cities in the United States, then calculates the happiness benefits. It’s a carefully done study and the results are of considerable interest, but there are still some issues to be clarified as follows. (1) This paper uses the weighted average method to calculate the happiness benefits, which often conceals the high and low values in the areas outside the park. Is it possible to use thermograms to show the spatial distribution of annual happiness within these cities? Thank you for this thoughtful comment. While the weighted average may conceal high and low values, our method of analysis purposefully does this to ask a specific question about the relative effect of park visitation on happiness as compared to other urban environments. While producing location-specific thermograms is beyond the scope of this paper, we have acknowledged the potential obscuring of extreme values in the manuscript on lines 210-212. “Prior work has shown that tweet happiness can vary within a city (even down to the neighborhood level) and extreme sentiment values may be obscured by our weighted averaging procedure \\cite{gibbons2019twitter}. We chose an aggregated approach to detect an overall signal about the effect of parks on happiness, but understanding detailed spatial patterns in happiness is an important future research direction.” (2) In the chapter of Temporal Analysis, the discussion of related results was missed. For example, the results in summer are higher than winter, and in weekends are higher than working days. It is worth considering that is this related to people’s travel habits. This is a helpful suggestion. We have added several sentence and an additional citation further expanding the discussion of our temporal analysis on lines 285-297. “Possible interpretations of seasonal differences may include that warmer or sunnier weather in the summer leads to an increased benefit from park visitation. People may engage in longer visits to parks during summer months, engage in physical activity, or connect with friends during the summer, all of which may increase the benefits of spending time in a park \\cite{Pretty2017}. Alternatively, more non-residents may be tweeting from parks during the summer, leading to greater within-park sentiment scores. Similar dynamics may be driving the higher happiness benefits on the weekend compared to weekdays, though all days of the week exhibited positive values (See Fig.~\\ref{fig_bins}). Prior work has shown that people on Twitter are happiest on the weekends and during times of year with more daylight \\cite{golder2011diurnal}. Nevertheless, our comparisons indicate that a sentiment benefit occurs throughout the day, week, and year, indicating that the effect is not purely driven by temporal patterns.” (3) We are happy to see your great results, but there is a lack of discussion at the end of this paper about the limitations, which is a common part of big data research. For example, the data comes from younger people who are more likely to share Twitter, and whether the higher spatial scale of the park (Fig4. A) is related to the surrounding population density and age structure is worth further discussion. Thank you, we have expanded our discussion and added a paragraph on the limitations of Twitter data around demographic representation. We have also included text discussing the limitations of our specifc methodology. For instance, we acknowledge that there are some confounding factors and potential biases in our approach of pooling tweets around specific types of parks. Please find these additions on lines 303-314. “We acknowledge that studying human behavior using Twitter data involves several potential sources of bias. Active users on Twitter tend to be younger and more affluent than the population at large \\cite{blank2017digital}. Instead of investigating how individual users and demographic sub-groups respond to nature contact, we attempt to estimate the aggregate effect of park visitation on happiness across a city. While our happiness benefit calculation uses same-city tweets as a control, the results may not generalize beyond Twitter users. We only use English language tweets which may limit our ability to generalize to other languages and cultures. We do not control for nearby demographics when assessing the happiness benefit of specific parks. For example, larger parks may be promixal to more affluent neighborhoods or associated with adjacent neighborhood age structure. While this may introduce bias across parks within cities, it should not impact our results comparing the total happiness benefit across cities.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261056.r004
24 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Mingxing Chen, Editor Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter PONE-D-20-27777R2 Dear Dr. Schwartz, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Mingxing Chen, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #4: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #4: The author made a good reply to the comments on the review of the manuscript, and made corresponding changes to the content of the article one by one, adding to the limitations of the existing data and methods. In spite of this, it is still a good article to explore the direction of emotional perception in urban space. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #4: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261056.r005
Formally Accepted
3 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Mingxing Chen, Editor PONE-D-20-27777R2 Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter Dear Dr. Schwartz: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Mingxing Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261056.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .